Adding R10 For Travel Purposes...

[DNBush]

Have an R6 Mark II. Love it but would only consider using it for domestic (by car) travel photography. Size and weight are the issue.

For longer, mostly international, trips that are often large guided tours, I'm thinking that maybe the R10 might be an option. I have a Sony ZV-1 but while it's delightfully small, I would like to see if I can up the IQ a bit and the R10 seems to be one option.

What is the opinion of the RF-S lenses? I know they're super light and that compliments what I find appealing about the R10 but how do they perform? I'm not a pixel peeper but I would like images that are good enough for the occasional 11x14 print.

Also, how is the IS when it's in the lens only? I'm a bit shaky.

Finally, I see there are no wide aperture primes in the RF-S line and the one FF one that appeals to me is the 16mm f/2.8 but it's not got IS so that for me would be a problem. Are there any good alternatives?

 

[smilerliu]

Have an R6 Mark II. Love it but would only consider using it for domestic (by car) travel photography. Size and weight are the issue.

For longer, mostly international, trips that are often large guided tours, I'm thinking that maybe the R10 might be an option. I have a Sony ZV-1 but while it's delightfully small, I would like to see if I can up the IQ a bit and the R10 seems to be one option.

What is the opinion of the RF-S lenses? I know they're super light and that compliments what I find appealing about the R10 but how do they perform? I'm not a pixel peeper but I would like images that are good enough for the occasional 11x14 print.

Also, how is the IS when it's in the lens only? I'm a bit shaky.

Finally, I see there are no wide aperture primes in the RF-S line and the one FF one that appeals to me is the 16mm f/2.8 but it's not got IS so that for me would be a problem. Are there any good alternatives?

The key question is what focal lengths and aperture values you need when traveling.

If you need a large focal length range and large apertures, FF is the way to go and no options are that much lighter than your R6II when you consider the camera + lenses combo.

If you need a large focal length range and you can live with smaller apertures, APS-C is the way to go to have meaningful weight savings even if you pick R7 as the camera.

If you need just a prime or two, FF isn't really that heavy regardless of the camera choice, and it provides much better low light performance. In this case I don't feel you get much by buying a separate APS-C system (camera + lenses).

 

[akustykmagmanetpl]

What is the opinion of the RF-S lenses? I know they're super light and that compliments what I find appealing about the R10 but how do they perform? I'm not a pixel peeper but I would like images that are good enough for the occasional 11x14 print.

I got my R10 with 18-150, added 10-18 later on

my original idea was to add small travel kit as an alternative to the big backpack with 5D4 with L-zooms, primes and filters (generally clocking north of 12kgs. or 25lbs for those not blessed with metric system ).

I wanted compatibility via adapter (hence Canon) and it was generally 18-150 as main reason I dipped my fingers in RF-S, because it has a reputation of being decent optics in very small package. then I went through sampling bodies in local stores to see if I can go around with R50 or need to spend more on R10 in order to get somewhere comfortable with UI/UX. ended up with R10, knowing what I know today I might actually saved through and gone for R7.

18-150 proved to be very decent but not as amazing as tests indicate. though, at the end of the day, no one expects L quality from such kit ultrazoom and if you get used to it and take into account that it is small and very light (so it's not as stable in the hand as a proper sized standard zoom) so it requires a bit extra steadiness when shooting handheld around 1/50s. it can go tack sharp at 1/10s up until 35mm indicator, or 1/30s around 70mm, but if you don't brace well and just trust IS blindly, a 1/50s at 18mm may turn out with some minor shake. IMHO simple downside of this model being designed for small and light - at the cost of steady support.

10-18 I find a little less prone to such unintended shake. it easily goes 1/4s without shake but also 1/30s to 1/50s range is seldom wrong.

when it comes to the body itself... I find R10 to be actually very pleasant to use. and that with years of muscle memory of 5D/6D/xxD cameras. it's very capable sensor and overall UI/UX that is really nice to use. the 24Mpix are plenty enough for 11x14

Also, how is the IS when it's in the lens only? I'm a bit shaky.

define your shaky

I guess a lot of this comes down to learning a bit attention. but if you are concerned, then perhaps it's good idea to consider a kit that is a bit bulkier/heavier. which may be easier to handhold steady

I've never had body with sensor IS, so can't compare

Finally, I see there are no wide aperture primes in the RF-S line and the one FF one that appeals to me is the 16mm f/2.8 but it's not got IS so that for me would be a problem. Are there any good alternatives?

for me 24/1.8 and 35/1.8 are fantastic primes for RF-S body.

 

[MAC]

R8 instead. Refurbs have been listed for $999

Read up OP has just bought R10 and stated reasons for choosing it over R8.

thumbs down, Op has 30 days to return

R8 doesn't have IBIS and while yes, my FF RF lenses do have IS, they, mounted on the R8 puts the weight and size too close to my R6 Mark II for my purposes.

please list your FF and APSC lenses

 

[MAC]

Have an R6 Mark II. Love it but would only consider using it for domestic (by car) travel photography. Size and weight are the issue.

For longer, mostly international, trips that are often large guided tours, I'm thinking that maybe the R10 might be an option. I have a Sony ZV-1 but while it's delightfully small, I would like to see if I can up the IQ a bit and the R10 seems to be one option.

What is the opinion of the RF-S lenses? I know they're super light and that compliments what I find appealing about the R10 but how do they perform? I'm not a pixel peeper but I would like images that are good enough for the occasional 11x14 print.

Also, how is the IS when it's in the lens only? I'm a bit shaky.

Finally, I see there are no wide aperture primes in the RF-S line and the one FF one that appeals to me is the 16mm f/2.8 but it's not got IS so that for me would be a problem. Are there any good alternatives?

The key question is what focal lengths and aperture values you need when traveling.

If you need a large focal length range and large apertures, FF is the way to go and no options are that much lighter than your R6II when you consider the camera + lenses combo.

If you need a large focal length range and you can live with smaller apertures, APS-C is the way to go to have meaningful weight savings even if you pick R7 as the camera.

If you need just a prime or two, FF isn't really that heavy regardless of the camera choice, and it provides much better low light performance. In this case I don't feel you get much by buying a separate APS-C system (camera + lenses).

+100

 

[jonby]

DO NOT get an Olympus camera...the worst menu system ever. It is a vast labyrinth. Not an enjoyable experience. When I used m43, I much preferred the Lumix cameras. Very poor in low light. Canon focusing is much better. R10 is much better camera. If you need smaller get a used M6 Mark II. Truthfully, just get R8 and three extra batteries and you will be loving life.

Hal

Valid opinion, but depends what the OP's priorities are. They highlighted size/weight and stabilization as the most important factors. Olympus cameras/MFT lenses excel in these areas. Whether the menus are a problem depends on the user's willingness to learn them. Overall the control systems are very good and once set up shouldn't require much menu diving.

Sensor performance of 20mp MFT is very close to Canon APS-C. Couple this with very effective stabilization and potentially faster lenses for a given size, and low light performance can actually be better. I'm sure you are right about low light AF performance - just depends on how important this is for OP.

 

[DNBush]

Have an R6 Mark II. Love it but would only consider using it for domestic (by car) travel photography. Size and weight are the issue.

For longer, mostly international, trips that are often large guided tours, I'm thinking that maybe the R10 might be an option. I have a Sony ZV-1 but while it's delightfully small, I would like to see if I can up the IQ a bit and the R10 seems to be one option.

What is the opinion of the RF-S lenses? I know they're super light and that compliments what I find appealing about the R10 but how do they perform? I'm not a pixel peeper but I would like images that are good enough for the occasional 11x14 print.

Also, how is the IS when it's in the lens only? I'm a bit shaky.

Finally, I see there are no wide aperture primes in the RF-S line and the one FF one that appeals to me is the 16mm f/2.8 but it's not got IS so that for me would be a problem. Are there any good alternatives?

The key question is what focal lengths and aperture values you need when traveling.

If you need a large focal length range and large apertures, FF is the way to go and no options are that much lighter than your R6II when you consider the camera + lenses combo.

If you need a large focal length range and you can live with smaller apertures, APS-C is the way to go to have meaningful weight savings even if you pick R7 as the camera.

If you need just a prime or two, FF isn't really that heavy regardless of the camera choice, and it provides much better low light performance. In this case I don't feel you get much by buying a separate APS-C system (camera + lenses).

For travel, I'm looking at really just something in the 24-70'ish range (FF equivalent). That's what my little ZV-1 is and it served me well last year when I traveled to Europe. Prior to that I had a small compact that went out to 200mm but only a couple shots were at that range so for my travel preferences, 24-70 or so is it.

The 18-150mm RF-S would certainly cover well beyond the long end but not quite as wide as I would like on the other. So, I'm thinking of adding the RF-S 10-18mm.

You may not have seen my other reply here where I related my initial testing of the R10 with regards to low light and both noise and steadiness. Positive outcomes so fast aperture is not going to be needed.

 

[DNBush]

What is the opinion of the RF-S lenses? I know they're super light and that compliments what I find appealing about the R10 but how do they perform? I'm not a pixel peeper but I would like images that are good enough for the occasional 11x14 print.

I got my R10 with 18-150, added 10-18 later on

my original idea was to add small travel kit as an alternative to the big backpack with 5D4 with L-zooms, primes and filters (generally clocking north of 12kgs. or 25lbs for those not blessed with metric system ).

I wanted compatibility via adapter (hence Canon) and it was generally 18-150 as main reason I dipped my fingers in RF-S, because it has a reputation of being decent optics in very small package. then I went through sampling bodies in local stores to see if I can go around with R50 or need to spend more on R10 in order to get somewhere comfortable with UI/UX. ended up with R10, knowing what I know today I might actually saved through and gone for R7.

18-150 proved to be very decent but not as amazing as tests indicate. though, at the end of the day, no one expects L quality from such kit ultrazoom and if you get used to it and take into account that it is small and very light (so it's not as stable in the hand as a proper sized standard zoom) so it requires a bit extra steadiness when shooting handheld around 1/50s. it can go tack sharp at 1/10s up until 35mm indicator, or 1/30s around 70mm, but if you don't brace well and just trust IS blindly, a 1/50s at 18mm may turn out with some minor shake. IMHO simple downside of this model being designed for small and light - at the cost of steady support.

10-18 I find a little less prone to such unintended shake. it easily goes 1/4s without shake but also 1/30s to 1/50s range is seldom wrong.

when it comes to the body itself... I find R10 to be actually very pleasant to use. and that with years of muscle memory of 5D/6D/xxD cameras. it's very capable sensor and overall UI/UX that is really nice to use. the 24Mpix are plenty enough for 11x14

Also, how is the IS when it's in the lens only? I'm a bit shaky.

define your shaky

I guess a lot of this comes down to learning a bit attention. but if you are concerned, then perhaps it's good idea to consider a kit that is a bit bulkier/heavier. which may be easier to handhold steady

I've never had body with sensor IS, so can't compare

Finally, I see there are no wide aperture primes in the RF-S line and the one FF one that appeals to me is the 16mm f/2.8 but it's not got IS so that for me would be a problem. Are there any good alternatives?

for me 24/1.8 and 35/1.8 are fantastic primes for RF-S body.

You may have missed my update (yesterday). Quoted below...

"Took delivery of an R10 w/18-45mm kit lens today. Impressions so far...

Very, very light and not too small for my large hands. Ergonomically speaking this is what I was hoping for.

I took some test shots outside in daylight to try to evaluate the lens' sharpness. It looks better than the reviews that I've been reading. I have the 18-150mm coming tomorrow. Apparently it's even better.

I then took some shots in my dark basement to one, evaluate how it does at higher ISO and two, to see how low of a shutter speed I can get away with given the system will only have lens IS. The results? I likely would not exceed ISO 6400 and more than likely try to stay closer to 3200 as my max. A fair amount of noise at 100% but DxO (and Topaz) clean it up very, very well. As for shutter speed, it looks like 1/15 is going to be my minimum. I was doing this test in my basemen with the lights off so the only light was from the window wells. Not much really. This is far darker than I am likely to encounter in any scenario that I can think of. So in reality I will likely be able to stay at or lower than ISO 3200 and at or higher than 1/15th SS.

I have a 30 day return option but so far, so good."

 

[MAC]

Have an R6 Mark II. Love it but would only consider using it for domestic (by car) travel photography. Size and weight are the issue.

For longer, mostly international, trips that are often large guided tours, I'm thinking that maybe the R10 might be an option. I have a Sony ZV-1 but while it's delightfully small, I would like to see if I can up the IQ a bit and the R10 seems to be one option.

What is the opinion of the RF-S lenses? I know they're super light and that compliments what I find appealing about the R10 but how do they perform? I'm not a pixel peeper but I would like images that are good enough for the occasional 11x14 print.

Also, how is the IS when it's in the lens only? I'm a bit shaky.

Finally, I see there are no wide aperture primes in the RF-S line and the one FF one that appeals to me is the 16mm f/2.8 but it's not got IS so that for me would be a problem. Are there any good alternatives?

The key question is what focal lengths and aperture values you need when traveling.

If you need a large focal length range and large apertures, FF is the way to go and no options are that much lighter than your R6II when you consider the camera + lenses combo.

If you need a large focal length range and you can live with smaller apertures, APS-C is the way to go to have meaningful weight savings even if you pick R7 as the camera.

If you need just a prime or two, FF isn't really that heavy regardless of the camera choice, and it provides much better low light performance. In this case I don't feel you get much by buying a separate APS-C system (camera + lenses).

For travel, I'm looking at really just something in the 24-70'ish range (FF equivalent).

and that is the problem

That's what my little ZV-1 is and it served me well last year when I traveled to Europe. Prior to that I had a small compact that went out to 200mm but only a couple shots were at that range so for my travel preferences, 24-70 or so is it.

The 18-150mm RF-S would certainly cover well beyond the long end but not quite as wide as I would like on the other. So, I'm thinking of adding the RF-S 10-18mm.
You may not have seen my other reply here where I related my initial testing of the R10 with regards to low light and both noise and steadiness. Positive outcomes so fast aperture is not going to be needed.

 

[Andy Lucy]

Have an R6 Mark II. Love it but would only consider using it for domestic (by car) travel photography. Size and weight are the issue.

For longer, mostly international, trips that are often large guided tours, I'm thinking that maybe the R10 might be an option. I have a Sony ZV-1 but while it's delightfully small, I would like to see if I can up the IQ a bit and the R10 seems to be one option.

What is the opinion of the RF-S lenses? I know they're super light and that compliments what I find appealing about the R10 but how do they perform? I'm not a pixel peeper but I would like images that are good enough for the occasional 11x14 print.

Also, how is the IS when it's in the lens only? I'm a bit shaky.

Finally, I see there are no wide aperture primes in the RF-S line and the one FF one that appeals to me is the 16mm f/2.8 but it's not got IS so that for me would be a problem. Are there any good alternatives?

The key question is what focal lengths and aperture values you need when traveling.

If you need a large focal length range and large apertures, FF is the way to go and no options are that much lighter than your R6II when you consider the camera + lenses combo.

If you need a large focal length range and you can live with smaller apertures, APS-C is the way to go to have meaningful weight savings even if you pick R7 as the camera.

If you need just a prime or two, FF isn't really that heavy regardless of the camera choice, and it provides much better low light performance. In this case I don't feel you get much by buying a separate APS-C system (camera + lenses).

For travel, I'm looking at really just something in the 24-70'ish range (FF equivalent).

and that is the problem

That's what my little ZV-1 is and it served me well last year when I traveled to Europe. Prior to that I had a small compact that went out to 200mm but only a couple shots were at that range so for my travel preferences, 24-70 or so is it.

The 18-150mm RF-S would certainly cover well beyond the long end but not quite as wide as I would like on the other. So, I'm thinking of adding the RF-S 10-18mm.
You may not have seen my other reply here where I related my initial testing of the R10 with regards to low light and both noise and steadiness. Positive outcomes so fast aperture is not going to be needed.

I know you’ve already purchased the R10, but do have the opportunity to return it, so think it worth while mentioning the Nikon Z50 (or Z50ii) + the Nikon 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 kit lens.

The lens is well regarded (by Nikon shooters, anyway) since it gives decent results, is very small and light, has built in vibration reduction, and gives a field of view the same as a 24-75mm lens on a FF camera.

The Z50 / Z50ii cameras also have better low light performance than the R10 (see DPReview data) which, combined with f/3.5 at 16mm means that you could get away without a wide angle prime.

 

[ddixon]

I think you will enjoy your kit. I have an R5, but for travel with lots of walking I got an R50. I have the 18-150 for outdoors/better light, but the shorter and faster Sigma 18-50 2.8 for indoors/lower light. Both are good. I have the RF-S 10-18, and sometimes carry the RF 16 2.8, but am considering replacing both with the Sigma 10-18 2.8, even though I would lose lens stabilizaton.

Like the OP said, I wish the longer zooms started wider than 18mm.

One thing I do (since I almost never use the EVF and just view the back screen) is to use a lightweight Peak Design neck strap crossbody, but adjusted short enough that It's pulled taut when shooting. I think that helps negate the lack of IBIS.

This has been a good, info-filled thread.

 

[DNBush]

Have an R6 Mark II. Love it but would only consider using it for domestic (by car) travel photography. Size and weight are the issue.

For longer, mostly international, trips that are often large guided tours, I'm thinking that maybe the R10 might be an option. I have a Sony ZV-1 but while it's delightfully small, I would like to see if I can up the IQ a bit and the R10 seems to be one option.

What is the opinion of the RF-S lenses? I know they're super light and that compliments what I find appealing about the R10 but how do they perform? I'm not a pixel peeper but I would like images that are good enough for the occasional 11x14 print.

Also, how is the IS when it's in the lens only? I'm a bit shaky.

Finally, I see there are no wide aperture primes in the RF-S line and the one FF one that appeals to me is the 16mm f/2.8 but it's not got IS so that for me would be a problem. Are there any good alternatives?

The key question is what focal lengths and aperture values you need when traveling.

If you need a large focal length range and large apertures, FF is the way to go and no options are that much lighter than your R6II when you consider the camera + lenses combo.

If you need a large focal length range and you can live with smaller apertures, APS-C is the way to go to have meaningful weight savings even if you pick R7 as the camera.

If you need just a prime or two, FF isn't really that heavy regardless of the camera choice, and it provides much better low light performance. In this case I don't feel you get much by buying a separate APS-C system (camera + lenses).

For travel, I'm looking at really just something in the 24-70'ish range (FF equivalent).

and that is the problem

That's what my little ZV-1 is and it served me well last year when I traveled to Europe. Prior to that I had a small compact that went out to 200mm but only a couple shots were at that range so for my travel preferences, 24-70 or so is it.

The 18-150mm RF-S would certainly cover well beyond the long end but not quite as wide as I would like on the other. So, I'm thinking of adding the RF-S 10-18mm.
You may not have seen my other reply here where I related my initial testing of the R10 with regards to low light and both noise and steadiness. Positive outcomes so fast aperture is not going to be needed.

I know you’ve already purchased the R10, but do have the opportunity to return it, so think it worth while mentioning the Nikon Z50 (or Z50ii) + the Nikon 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 kit lens.
The lens is well regarded (by Nikon shooters, anyway) since it gives decent results, is very small and light, has built in vibration reduction, and gives a field of view the same as a 24-75mm lens on a FF camera.

The Z50 / Z50ii cameras also have better low light performance than the R10 (see DPReview data) which, combined with f/3.5 at 16mm means that you could get away without a wide angle prime.

Indeed. That one has been rolling around in my mind. Thanks for reminding me of it.

 

[DNBush]

The Z50 / Z50ii cameras also have better low light performance than the R10 (see DPReview data) which, combined with f/3.5 at 16mm means that you could get away without a wide angle prime.

Andy,

Which DPReview data are you referring to? The Studio shot comparison tool? And are you talking about noise?

 

[Andy Lucy]

The Z50 / Z50ii cameras also have better low light performance than the R10 (see DPReview data) which, combined with f/3.5 at 16mm means that you could get away without a wide angle prime.

Andy,

Which DPReview data are you referring to? The Studio shot comparison tool? And are you talking about noise?

In the R10 review, section under image quality, it states “In (very) low light the Raw performance seems a little improved over its predecessors but still behind its immediate peers”. The studio scene comparison tool, with RAW files, clearly shows that the R10 has more noise than the Z50.

 

[smilerliu]

Have an R6 Mark II. Love it but would only consider using it for domestic (by car) travel photography. Size and weight are the issue.

For longer, mostly international, trips that are often large guided tours, I'm thinking that maybe the R10 might be an option. I have a Sony ZV-1 but while it's delightfully small, I would like to see if I can up the IQ a bit and the R10 seems to be one option.

What is the opinion of the RF-S lenses? I know they're super light and that compliments what I find appealing about the R10 but how do they perform? I'm not a pixel peeper but I would like images that are good enough for the occasional 11x14 print.

Also, how is the IS when it's in the lens only? I'm a bit shaky.

Finally, I see there are no wide aperture primes in the RF-S line and the one FF one that appeals to me is the 16mm f/2.8 but it's not got IS so that for me would be a problem. Are there any good alternatives?

The key question is what focal lengths and aperture values you need when traveling.

If you need a large focal length range and large apertures, FF is the way to go and no options are that much lighter than your R6II when you consider the camera + lenses combo.

If you need a large focal length range and you can live with smaller apertures, APS-C is the way to go to have meaningful weight savings even if you pick R7 as the camera.

If you need just a prime or two, FF isn't really that heavy regardless of the camera choice, and it provides much better low light performance. In this case I don't feel you get much by buying a separate APS-C system (camera + lenses).

For travel, I'm looking at really just something in the 24-70'ish range (FF equivalent).

The bad news is that Canon doesn't provide any mid-range zoom starting from 24mm equivalent in RF-S. And I think this is intentional, meaning it's unlikely to change in the future.

I saw that you already bought R10. So you can try out just using the 18-45 kit lens. I think many people thinking they need 24mm actually can live happily with 28mm. If you can, R10 + kit lens will give you pretty good result and meaningful weight savings when traveling. Add an 10-18 (currently $200 from Canon USA refurb) or 55-210 if you are willing to take two lenses and change when traveling.

If you can accept 24-50, you can try it out with your R6II. The combo wouldn't be too much heavier than R10 + kit lens, and you save the money for buying another camera plus get the FF benefit. I don't have 24-50, but I think it will probably feel better than expected, similar to how you feel about 18-45.

If you have to go with APS-C and 24mm zoom, Nikon and Fuji both have 24mm kit lenses that are small, lightweight and optically great. Or you can try R10 + RF 15-30.

That's what my little ZV-1 is and it served me well last year when I traveled to Europe. Prior to that I had a small compact that went out to 200mm but only a couple shots were at that range so for my travel preferences, 24-70 or so is it.

The 18-150mm RF-S would certainly cover well beyond the long end but not quite as wide as I would like on the other. So, I'm thinking of adding the RF-S 10-18mm.
You may not have seen my other reply here where I related my initial testing of the R10 with regards to low light and both noise and steadiness. Positive outcomes so fast aperture is not going to be needed.

 

[smilerliu]

BTW if you are willing to consider Nikon, its APS-C system is actually great for traveling. Z50II has very good reviews and it's weather sealed. 16-50 is optically very good and small and light weight. 18-140 and 12-28 are both optically very good and weather resistant. 24/1.7 is optically very good when stepping down and also weather resistant. In the Nikon APS-C system, you just don't get fast zooms; I also think this is intentional so that Nikon can protect their FF sales.

 

[DNBush]

Have an R6 Mark II. Love it but would only consider using it for domestic (by car) travel photography. Size and weight are the issue.

For longer, mostly international, trips that are often large guided tours, I'm thinking that maybe the R10 might be an option. I have a Sony ZV-1 but while it's delightfully small, I would like to see if I can up the IQ a bit and the R10 seems to be one option.

What is the opinion of the RF-S lenses? I know they're super light and that compliments what I find appealing about the R10 but how do they perform? I'm not a pixel peeper but I would like images that are good enough for the occasional 11x14 print.

Also, how is the IS when it's in the lens only? I'm a bit shaky.

Finally, I see there are no wide aperture primes in the RF-S line and the one FF one that appeals to me is the 16mm f/2.8 but it's not got IS so that for me would be a problem. Are there any good alternatives?

The key question is what focal lengths and aperture values you need when traveling.

If you need a large focal length range and large apertures, FF is the way to go and no options are that much lighter than your R6II when you consider the camera + lenses combo.

If you need a large focal length range and you can live with smaller apertures, APS-C is the way to go to have meaningful weight savings even if you pick R7 as the camera.

If you need just a prime or two, FF isn't really that heavy regardless of the camera choice, and it provides much better low light performance. In this case I don't feel you get much by buying a separate APS-C system (camera + lenses).

For travel, I'm looking at really just something in the 24-70'ish range (FF equivalent).

The bad news is that Canon doesn't provide any mid-range zoom starting from 24mm equivalent in RF-S. And I think this is intentional, meaning it's unlikely to change in the future.

Yeah, I noticed that early on.

I saw that you already bought R10. So you can try out just using the 18-45 kit lens. I think many people thinking they need 24mm actually can live happily with 28mm. If you can, R10 + kit lens will give you pretty good result and meaningful weight savings when traveling. Add an 10-18 (currently $200 from Canon USA refurb) or 55-210 if you are willing to take two lenses and change when traveling.

I can actually work with 28mm (actually more like 29) because if I need a bit wider I would just take a couple photos and stitch. I've done that often over the years.

The R10 (which I do have in hand) w/18-45mm is SUPER light. That's what I'm looking for, for travel. And the ergonomics are great.

I am however actually thinking that I'd prefer the 18-150mm RF-S lens as from the reviews I've seen, it's a bit sharper and it's also a bit faster (f/3.5 vs. f/4.5 at the wide end). It's still very light.

If you can accept 24-50, you can try it out with your R6II. The combo wouldn't be too much heavier than R10 + kit lens, and you save the money for buying another camera plus get the FF benefit. I don't have 24-50, but I think it will probably feel better than expected, similar to how you feel about 18-45.

Well, the R10 w/18-150mm weighs in at about 740 grams. The R6 Mark II with the 24-50 is about 940 grams. For me, that noticeably more. But, get this, the R8 w/24-50mm is only about 730 grams. That's less than the little R10 w/18-150mm

Now I've not seriously though about the R8 until just this evening (I started another thread about it).

If you have to go with APS-C and 24mm zoom, Nikon and Fuji both have 24mm kit lenses that are small, lightweight and optically great. Or you can try R10 + RF 15-30.

I have the RF 15-30 STM and have mounted it on the R10. The weight and size are OK. It gives me a FF equivalent of 24-48. I do think though that I would like to be able to go beyond 48mm.

 

[Andy01]

Well, the R10 w/18-150mm weighs in at about 740 grams. The R6 Mark II with the 24-50 is about 940 grams. For me, that noticeably more. But, get this, the R8 w/24-50mm is only about 730 grams. That's less than the little R10 w/18-150mm
Now I've not seriously though about the R8 until just this evening (I started another thread about it).

The thing is you are not comparing apples with apples. 18-150 is about 29-240mm (FF equiv FoV) compared with a tiny 24-50mm.

Now, of course, you may only need the 24-50 range, in which case don't compare the 18-150, but rather something shorter. Or, as I did earlier, compare 18-150 with RF 24-240, which is a vastly different outcome.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that R8 is a poor direction to take. I own both R8 & R10 and use R8 more than R10 (unless I am shooting something requiring reach).

If you have to go with APS-C and 24mm zoom, Nikon and Fuji both have 24mm kit lenses that are small, lightweight and optically great. Or you can try R10 + RF 15-30.

I have the RF 15-30 STM and have mounted it on the R10. The weight and size are OK. It gives me a FF equivalent of 24-48. I do think though that I would like to be able to go beyond 48mm.

I agree, and while RF 15-30 (on R10) closely matches RF 24-50 (on R8), I would find it quite limiting compared to 18-150, and it is also a larger & heavier lens - which contradicts your fundamental intent.

I used a EF 24-105L on a 600D & 70D for many years and managed quite well with the 29mm "limit". On 18-150, the long end often makes up for the lack of short end.

 

[drsnoopy]

What is the opinion of the RF-S lenses? I know they're super light and that compliments what I find appealing about the R10 but how do they perform? I'm not a pixel peeper but I would like images that are good enough for the occasional 11x14 print.

I got my R10 with 18-150, added 10-18 later on

my original idea was to add small travel kit as an alternative to the big backpack with 5D4 with L-zooms, primes and filters (generally clocking north of 12kgs. or 25lbs for those not blessed with metric system ).

I wanted compatibility via adapter (hence Canon) and it was generally 18-150 as main reason I dipped my fingers in RF-S, because it has a reputation of being decent optics in very small package. then I went through sampling bodies in local stores to see if I can go around with R50 or need to spend more on R10 in order to get somewhere comfortable with UI/UX. ended up with R10, knowing what I know today I might actually saved through and gone for R7.

18-150 proved to be very decent but not as amazing as tests indicate. though, at the end of the day, no one expects L quality from such kit ultrazoom and if you get used to it and take into account that it is small and very light (so it's not as stable in the hand as a proper sized standard zoom) so it requires a bit extra steadiness when shooting handheld around 1/50s. it can go tack sharp at 1/10s up until 35mm indicator, or 1/30s around 70mm, but if you don't brace well and just trust IS blindly, a 1/50s at 18mm may turn out with some minor shake. IMHO simple downside of this model being designed for small and light - at the cost of steady support.

10-18 I find a little less prone to such unintended shake. it easily goes 1/4s without shake but also 1/30s to 1/50s range is seldom wrong.

when it comes to the body itself... I find R10 to be actually very pleasant to use. and that with years of muscle memory of 5D/6D/xxD cameras. it's very capable sensor and overall UI/UX that is really nice to use. the 24Mpix are plenty enough for 11x14

Also, how is the IS when it's in the lens only? I'm a bit shaky.

define your shaky

I guess a lot of this comes down to learning a bit attention. but if you are concerned, then perhaps it's good idea to consider a kit that is a bit bulkier/heavier. which may be easier to handhold steady

I've never had body with sensor IS, so can't compare

Finally, I see there are no wide aperture primes in the RF-S line and the one FF one that appeals to me is the 16mm f/2.8 but it's not got IS so that for me would be a problem. Are there any good alternatives?

for me 24/1.8 and 35/1.8 are fantastic primes for RF-S body.

You may have missed my update (yesterday). Quoted below...

"Took delivery of an R10 w/18-45mm kit lens today. Impressions so far...

Very, very light and not too small for my large hands. Ergonomically speaking this is what I was hoping for.

I took some test shots outside in daylight to try to evaluate the lens' sharpness. It looks better than the reviews that I've been reading. I have the 18-150mm coming tomorrow. Apparently it's even better.

I then took some shots in my dark basement to one, evaluate how it does at higher ISO and two, to see how low of a shutter speed I can get away with given the system will only have lens IS. The results? I likely would not exceed ISO 6400 and more than likely try to stay closer to 3200 as my max. A fair amount of noise at 100% but DxO (and Topaz) clean it up very, very well. As for shutter speed, it looks like 1/15 is going to be my minimum. I was doing this test in my basemen with the lights off so the only light was from the window wells. Not much really. This is far darker than I am likely to encounter in any scenario that I can think of. So in reality I will likely be able to stay at or lower than ISO 3200 and at or higher than 1/15th SS.

I have a 30 day return option but so far, so good."

A good tip for slow shutter speeds is to use the 2 second delay. This prevents the movement of your finger on the shutter button moving the camera during the exposure. Brace yourself in a stable position, hold your breath or exhale slowly, press the button, wait for the shutter to fire. You may well find you can get down to 1/4 second or even slower. Also take several shots in this way - one will be sharper than others. View at 100% on the LCD to check

You mention DXO - their profiles work amazingly well with the RF-S 18-150 and 10-18 for optical correction, and Deep Prime noise reduction will let you use higher ISO settings. I use my R7 with those lenses for lightweight travel and sometimes struggle when editing to tell the difference versus images from my R5 and L zooms (though these will print larger). You can also often greatly improve an image affected by minor camera shake by using Topaz Sharpen on its motion blur setting; often quite a low setting is enough (this is less easy using Photo AI though).

Enjoy your R10 - it’s a fine camera. I only changed mine for the R7 for the additional features that were useful to me, especially battery compatibility with my R5.

 

[drsnoopy]

I have both the R8 and R10. I find that I prefer the R8 and use it most of the time. With either the 35mm or 28 mm lens the camera is relatively small and very comfortable to carry. I use the R10 when I want more reach. The R8 is my favorite camera by far.

Hal

Do you find the grip of the R10 smaller or the same as the R8?

The grip sizes are pretty much the same, as they both use the same LP-E17 battery.

The R50 uses the same battery (as does M6 ii) and the grip sizes there are very different (from either R10 or R8), so the battery size isn't a great indicator of grip size.

Maybe not, because it depends on how the battery is located. But nevertheless the R8 and R10 grips are very similar in size.

 

[Rock and Rollei]

I touched on the buffer size in terms of burst depth, but the reality is that these are all things that have made precisely zero difference to me for use of the R50 as a travel camera.

I suppose if you only use R50 as a travel camera and have more capable cameras for "normal" use like wildlife or birds then you may not notice,

And the point is that that is exactly the scenario the OP was talking about.

but R10 (with RF 100-400, or perhaps EF 100-400L ii, which I have kept) is my "wildlife" camera and general purpose "reach" camera, so it has many features that R50 doesn't that are very useful to me. For example next year I am traveling to Antarctica and R10 will be my "reach" camera for anything from whales to penguins and other sea birds, and R50 just wouldn't cut it for that kind of travel.

The one I was worried about was the lack of sensor cleaning, since back in the day I owned the original 5D, with a sensor I had to manually clean 3 times a month, but in a year of owning the R50, I'v not had to clean the sensor once.

Funnily enough, I have owned digitals (450D, 600D, 70D, M3, M5 & 6D ii) for almost 20 years and NEVER had to do a manual (wet) sensor clean (the camera's cleaning has been enough, and that includes a couple of safaris and whale watching trips), and both my R10 & R8 developed a decent sized "spot" on a recent trip to Sri Lanka & Maldives - after just 7 months of owning them. I am waiting for the kits to do my ever wet cleans.

Yes, for some uses, some of these restrictions might well make the R10 a better choice than the R50, but for this purpose, the better AF and reduced size and weight are significant advantages for the R50 over the R10 IMHO.

This is a personal choice.

Well yes. The point is that every equipment choice is a compromise, and every individual is different, so even with very similar requirements we might come to very different conclusions, based on physiological differences and preferences as much as anything. I personally decided that the R50 was a better fit for me than the R10, and that if I wanted it more for birding or sport, I would prefer the R7 to the R10 - for me personally, the R10 was neither fish nor fowl. But that doesn't mean that the same thing would necessarily apply to someone with otherwise identical requirements, based on preference and even something like hand size. There's no overall right or wrong answer, merely what any one person prefers. It's all personal choice.

I rarely notice the difference in AF between my R8 (which I believe is the same "generation" as R50) and R10, but others may notice it more. The only people I have heard mention the difference are R50 owners. As for the size & weight difference e are talking 54g (same as a small chocolate bar) and the main difference in size is the grip depth, which can have disadvantages if using a larger lens. Again I think this depends on the use case - as a lightweight travel camera with a small-ish prime (perhaps like the OP's use case), the R50 certainly has advantages, but as a general use camera where some larger lenses may be in use (like my use case), the shallow grip is a distinct disadvantage.

YMMV, of course. Obviously any potential purchaser should check out the spec sheets to make sure there are no red flags for them, and should also check the handling to see if it suits them, as with any camera purchase - the latter is probably the most important part of choosing a camera, and is far too often neglected in online advice.